Should you be compensated for the GTX 970 issues and spec changes?

[SlowSpyder]

But expecting anything more than a full refund of your money at maximum is nonsense to me. That someone expects a 980 for the price they paid for a 970 is crazy and I can't wrap my mind around that.

So if you buy a GTX 970, it is "nonsense" to expect a part with better specs than what you paid for. Ok, I'm with you.

But if you buy a GTX 970 and it has lesser specs than what you paid for, you feel Nvidia gets a free pass? Now I'm confused again.

Think about what you're saying. The logic is the same in both directions, why is it a non-issue to you if Nvidia gives you less than you paid for, but you think it is "nonsense" to want more than you paid for?

 

[HumblePie]

But expecting anything more than a full refund of your money at maximum is nonsense to me. That someone expects a 980 for the price they paid for a 970 is crazy and I can't wrap my mind around that.

Then you don't understand consumer protection laws. I do NOT expect a 980 card for my 970. I expect a card that meets the original advertised product specs of the 970 when I made my purchase. This can be a recall to my product to modify it to meet those specs. It can be a new card created by them that meets those specs. It could ALSO be, if nvidia so chooses, a product that exceeds those specs. Their only card that exceeds the specs they have available right now is a 980 gtx. Those all are satisfactory resolutions that can be legally made by Nvidia and their manufacturing partners that I would be legally bound in my state to auto accept without need for a court process. The last would be a pay out of 3 times my initial purchase price.

Otherwise, if Nvidia and their partners aren't willing to do one of the 4 options as noted above then I can start the court process to claim damages made by their breaking of my state's consumer protection laws. Doing so will have the court order them to do one of the 4 resolution plus pay any application legal fees that would incurred by my attorney in the legal process. Which in the end would cost them far more to go that route. Plus the court may impose an even larger penalty if they deem it needed.

 

[cmdrdredd]

LOL, subscribed to this thread for when nVidia's lawyers crush Humblepie and stick him with 300 grand in legal fees. Over a $400 product that is working exactly how it should.

I wouldn't go that far. I just can't see how offering a full refund of the purchase price paid for the product you aren't happy with is not sufficient compensation. If you want to go out and replace the card with one from the competition nobody is stopping you from doing so. This reads more like someone trying to "stick it to the man" than someone actually unhappy with the card they were sold. If I absolutely had to get rid of the card because I wasn't happy I would be happy with a refund, I could put that toward the product of my choosing. You could even put it toward a 290x and pocket the difference since the 290x can be found cheaper than most 970s.

 

[HumblePie]

LOL, subscribed to this thread for when nVidia's lawyers crush Humblepie and stick him with 300 grand in legal fees. Over a $400 product that is working exactly how it should.

Hahah, same thing was said to me when I posted about my last legal law suit in the OT forums a couple years back. The settlement does not allow me to give details anymore beyond the fact I was compensated to my satisfaction in the deal that was brokered prior to the court hearing. This is an even easier case than that one which was pretty easy as well to take to court. However, you can read what I posted prior to the settlement as any previous comments prior to that settlement I was not legally bound to have to take back. They are available for you to search if you feel like reading it the thread.

 

[5150Joker]

Then you don't understand consumer protection laws. I do NOT expect a 980 card for my 970. I expect a card that meets the original advertised product specs of the 970 when I made my purchase. This can be a recall to my product to modify it to meet those specs. It can be a new card created by them that meets those specs. It could ALSO be, if nvidia so chooses, a product that exceeds those specs. Their only card that exceeds the specs they have available right now is a 980 gtx. Those all are satisfactory resolutions that can be legally made by Nvidia and their manufacturing partners that I would be legally bound in my state to auto accept without need for a court process. The last would be a pay out of 3 times my initial purchase price.

Otherwise, if Nvidia and their partners aren't willing to do one of the 4 options as noted above then I can start the court process to claim damages made by their breaking of my state's consumer protection laws. Doing so will have the court order them to do one of the 4 resolution plus pay any application legal fees that would incurred by my attorney in the legal process. Which in the end would cost them far more to go that route. Plus the court may impose an even larger penalty if they deem it needed.

Let us know when you file the lawsuit, this should be good.

 

[Elixer]

@Elixer
Good one! I have been repeating this over threads, if people are happy, very good. Then again, there are those who are resorting to labelling customers who paid for something, for feeling as they do now. I mean seriously.

I have to say that i was expecting Nvidia do better than this, but i guess i should have known.

WTH, did Nvidia contact Purch and threaten them with loss of advertising $$$ / no more freebies "review" cards, if they don't remove posts from the forum ?

My Pictorial post was deleted without any explanation. It did not break any rules, and was not a thread cap, was not aimed at any forum user except in the broadest of terms asking why 970 owners who are fine with the fact that Nvidia lied about the specs are compelled to tell others how they should feel.
Heck, lots of other posts were killed as well.

Sigh.

Hopefully the mod(s) made an error in their haste to clean up this thread.

 

[cmdrdredd]

So if you buy a GTX 970, it is "nonsense" to expect a part with better specs than what you paid for. Ok, I'm with you.

But if you buy a GTX 970 and it has lesser specs than what you paid for, you feel Nvidia gets a free pass? Now I'm confused again.

Think about what you're saying. The logic is the same in both directions, why is it a non-issue to you if Nvidia gives you less than you paid for, but you think it is "nonsense" to want more than you paid for?

I don't pay for specs. I pay for a GPU that plays games at a certain performance metric. You can say I am not looking at it correctly and you may be right from your point of view. If the card had 16rops and half the SMMs but performed as it does, it doesn't matter to me. I upgraded from my 670s because the 970s offer a performance increase I found worth the expense at this time.

Granted I am not everyone. I just don't find it likely that everyone complaining looked at the rops and the detailed specs. I do think that most people went right to the FPS charts to see how it performed and then looked at the price. Am I wrong? Who can say?

 

[HumblePie]

I wouldn't go that far. I just can't see how offering a full refund of the purchase price paid for the product you aren't happy with is not sufficient compensation. If you want to go out and replace the card with one from the competition nobody is stopping you from doing so. This reads more like someone trying to "stick it to the man" than someone actually unhappy with the card they were sold. If I absolutely had to get rid of the card because I wasn't happy I would be happy with a refund, I cois not sufficient compensationuld put that toward the product of my choosing. You could even put it toward a 290x and pocket the difference since the 290x can be found cheaper than most 970s.

Because a refund is a legal counter offer but not a legally binding offer that has to be accepted by a consumer that was potentially harmed by the issue. A refund does not usually make a consumer "whole" as the consumer now has to go through the hassle of purchasing a product with the refunded money that meets their requirements that the previous product did not meet. As pointed out, if I was a business putting custom computers together, this issue could have effected my bottom line and a simple refund to me would not actually repair all the damage done to my business if that was the case.

 

[HumblePie]

Let us know when you file the lawsuit, this should be good.

If I have to go that route I certainly would post what I legally can about it in a fashion that would not affect the lawsuit as advised by my lawyer. As I said, this isn't my first rodeo down this path. Nor do I doubt it will be my last.

To reiterate at this point. I am not at this point "mad" at Nvidia nor the maker of my particular card. I understand mistakes are made and am giving Nvidia and their partner ample opportunity to resolve the mistake. They know the legal methods available to them to resolve the mistake to my satisfaction as I have informed them. So long as they take one of the prescribed legal resolutions within a timely manner I have zero ill will nor any animosity toward them. Again screw up happen and its how a company reacts to a mistake that determines if I will be a repeat customer of them in the future.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Well all I can say is we will see. There isn't much more for me to say from my opinion on it.

 

[Creig]

Well, this could prove interesting:

I queried Amazon on their stance on the 970 issue and they said I could either return the card for a full refund or keep the card and receive a 20% refund. I purchased my card back in September.

This is how Amazon is taking over the world and it scares me.

http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ained-tested-comment-thread-4.html#post786025

 

[Subyman]

I don't pay for specs. I pay for a GPU that plays games at a certain performance metric. You can say I am not looking at it correctly and you may be right from your point of view. If the card had 16rops and half the SMMs but performed as it does, it doesn't matter to me. I upgraded from my 670s because the 970s offer a performance increase I found worth the expense at this time.

Granted I am not everyone. I just don't find it likely that everyone complaining looked at the rops and the detailed specs. I do think that most people went right to the FPS charts to see how it performed and then looked at the price. Am I wrong? Who can say?

Nah, I don't buy that. What they say is on the chip should be what is on the chip regardless of performance. Push back is great for this type of thing otherwise Nvidia would keep doing this in the future. We should be able to trust the technical documents and specs the tech industry publishes, this instills doubt. If specs don't matter, then you'd be okay with nvidia simply not releasing any specs in the future?

 

[Headfoot]

Well, this could prove interesting:


http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...ained-tested-comment-thread-4.html#post786025

Yet more reasons to use Amazon. I had Amazon cover me when ASUS's garbage RMA wouldn't fix things, well out of the 30 day after sale period. Amazon's customer service has always been 100% top notch every time I've used them

 

[Carfax83]

Breaking: Nvidia engineer speaks out

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spZJrsssPA0

Whoever made that is a genius! :awe:

 

[superxero044]

Yet more reasons to use Amazon. I had Amazon cover me when ASUS's garbage RMA wouldn't fix things, well out of the 30 day after sale period. Amazon's customer service has always been 100% top notch every time I've used them

Wow. I bought from Newegg bc Amazon had short stock :/

Anyone have any luck getting a refund?

 

[Carfax83]

Yet more reasons to use Amazon. I had Amazon cover me when ASUS's garbage RMA wouldn't fix things, well out of the 30 day after sale period. Amazon's customer service has always been 100% top notch every time I've used them

I would love to have used Amazon myself, but then I'd have to pay taxes

 

[Carfax83]

Hahah, same thing was said to me when I posted about my last legal law suit in the OT forums a couple years back. The settlement does not allow me to give details anymore beyond the fact I was compensated to my satisfaction in the deal that was brokered prior to the court hearing. This is an even easier case than that one which was pretty easy as well to take to court. However, you can read what I posted prior to the settlement as any previous comments prior to that settlement I was not legally bound to have to take back. They are available for you to search if you feel like reading it the thread.

Interesting HumblePie, I hope you get through with it. NVidia needs to be taught a sharp lesson and it needs to be painful.

A lot of people, including myself, would not have bought the GTX 970 if we knew it was so crippled beforehand..

I also live in Texas by the way, but I bought my cards from Newegg which is in Cali, so I don't know how that will play out.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Nah, I don't buy that. What they say is on the chip should be what is on the chip regardless of performance. Push back is great for this type of thing otherwise Nvidia would keep doing this in the future. We should be able to trust the technical documents and specs the tech industry publishes, this instills doubt. If specs don't matter, then you'd be okay with nvidia simply not releasing any specs in the future?

If the card is a price I am looking at(or cards) and performs as I need/want/expect I don't look at the specs at all and probably still won't. I am not buying specs as I said. I am buying performance. If the CPU I have had worse specs and less cache etc than an AMD cpu I would still buy it because of the performance it offers for the price.

Like I said previously, I am not everyone and I may be looking at it all wrong from your point of view. It's ok though. Maybe you dig into the specs and want to know what's inside. That's not me and not how I buy computer hardware. If you asked me the same question about firearms, and if I dig into the specs I would say definitely yes but it's two different hobbies for two different purposes.

I would love to have used Amazon myself, but then I'd have to pay taxes

Amazon supposedly has a warehouse in Orlando FL but I still don't get charged tax on purchases from them. I don't know how this works. I bought my cards from B&H Photo and Video because they were slightly cheaper.

 

[Carfax83]

If the card is a price I am looking at(or cards) and performs as I need/want/expect I don't look at the specs at all and probably still won't.

But it's the specs that determines the performance. When I first looked at the GTX 970, I couldn't believe that NVidia was selling it for that price since it "supposedly" had the same cache, ROP count and memory system as the GTX 980, minus a few SMMs.

Now we know why it was so cheap compared to the 980.. :\

 

[3DVagabond]

MSI won't do anything unless forced and even then they'll sit on their hands as long as possible, probably same with Asus. They aren't in the same league as EVGA when it comes to things like this. I remember when the GTX 670 released and EVGA had a reference model, a superclocked model, and a FTW model at launch. Buyers of the SC would get driver resets and crashes, games locking up etc. Turns out there was a bad batch of cards and they had to do a voluntary recall. Anyone with an SC could contact them and RMA the card in exchange for a FTW model which was clocked higher and came with the more robust GTX 680 PCB and cooler(minus vapor chamber). You just had to pay for shipping but you got a card that was a good $30+ more expensive shipped back to you.

Speaking of EVGA, has anyone heard what they are offering outside of England? FWIU it's OCUK and EVGA in England only that's offering anything, and then I think it's just their standard trade up policy, but without the typical registration and fee. I think?

 

[jackstar7]

If the card is a price I am looking at(or cards) and performs as I need/want/expect I don't look at the specs at all and probably still won't. I am not buying specs as I said. I am buying performance. If the CPU I have had worse specs and less cache etc than an AMD cpu I would still buy it because of the performance it offers for the price.

Like I said previously, I am not everyone and I may be looking at it all wrong from your point of view. It's ok though. Maybe you dig into the specs and want to know what's inside. That's not me and not how I buy computer hardware. If you asked me the same question about firearms, and if I dig into the specs I would say definitely yes but it's two different hobbies for two different purposes.

I'm only confused because you OC, which requires some knowledge and understanding of the specs.

 

[cmdrdredd]

But it's the specs that determines the performance. When I first looked at the GTX 970, I couldn't believe that NVidia was selling it for that price since it "supposedly" had the same cache, ROP count and memory system as the GTX 980, minus a few SMMs.



Now we know why it was so cheap compared to the 980.. :\

Specs only tell part of the story on performance as we have seen. The benchmarks initially and user reports could not have shown the current situation.

I'm only confused because you OC, which requires some knowledge and understanding of the specs.

User reports more than anything. I don't dig into details so much as I see what other people achieve in the real world. Stuff like voltages, safe temps, throttle points etc.

 

[positivedoppler]

There is techically 4 gb of memory on the card so going to court may not pan out, but nvidia should do the right thing and compensate everyone they deceived

 

[garagisti]

I don't pay for specs. I pay for a GPU that plays games at a certain performance metric. You can say I am not looking at it correctly and you may be right from your point of view. If the card had 16rops and half the SMMs but performed as it does, it doesn't matter to me. I upgraded from my 670s because the 970s offer a performance increase I found worth the expense at this time.

Granted I am not everyone. I just don't find it likely that everyone complaining looked at the rops and the detailed specs. I do think that most people went right to the FPS charts to see how it performed and then looked at the price. Am I wrong? Who can say?

You are telling the majority of purchasers to just look at benchmarks and not worry about what it says when it comes to specification of products. Well, while it is true, that the games will perform as they have, but what about ones to come? Surely Nvidia wouldn't guarantee jack, so are the customers in wrong when they try to buy something that may last them for more than the games currently in vogue? This has been the norm when it comes to buying hardware for majority of buyers, as in to futureproof their purchase a wee bit. Pray tell why Nvidia is selling their cards as dx12 capable when dx12 isn't even here? Right... to woo customers, and to suggest that their purchase is futureproof. So your logic that customers should just be happy, because you're happy (?), as games work as advertised is as flawed as it comes.

 

[positivedoppler]

Truth is, few people buy the latest and greatest tech products based on the performance now. If you drop over $300 on a single pc component, you expect some degree of future proofing. I hope nvidia doea the right thing